Bletas v. Subway International B.V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bletas v. Subway International B.V.

96 A.D.3d 442, 946 N.Y.S.2d 130

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 7, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 442 (Bletas v. Subway International B.V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bletas v. Subway International B.V., 96 A.D.3d 442, 946 N.Y.S.2d 130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 9, 2011, denying the petition to vacate two arbitration awards, denying petitioners’ motions to renew a prior petition, to disqualify respondent’s counsel, and to stay the proceeding, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to show that the petition was served on a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1). The provision of the parties’ franchise agreements on which petitioners rely concerns only service of a notice required by the agreements, not service of process required by the CPLR. Moreover, commencement of the proceeding was untimely, since the purported service occurred more than 90 days after the awards were received (see Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept., 281 AD2d 253 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 601 [2001]).

In any event, the petition fails to present a basis for vacating the arbitration awards. The omission of a reference to a tax withholding requirement from one of the awards does not create an explicit conflict with any law or public policy requiring tax withholding (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]).

We have reviewed petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32327(11).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 9, 2011, denying the petition to vacate two arbitration awards, denying petitioners’ motions to renew a prior petition, to disqualify respondent’s counsel, and to stay the proceeding, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to show that the petition was served on a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1). The provision of the parties’ franchise agreements on which petitioners rely concerns only service of a notice required by the agreements, not service of process required by the CPLR. Moreover, commencement of the proceeding was untimely, since the purported service occurred more than 90 days after the awards were received (see Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept., 281 AD2d 253 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 601 [2001]).

In any event, the petition fails to present a basis for vacating the arbitration awards. The omission of a reference to a tax withholding requirement from one of the awards does not create an explicit conflict with any law or public policy requiring tax withholding (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]).

We have reviewed petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32327(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 442, 946 N.Y.S.2d 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bletas-v-subway-international-bv-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack